"[M]any Kavanaugh foes are eager to implement a new standard that they would never agree to live under themselves"
Statutes of limitation, the opportunity to expunge a record, etc., exist for a reason. There’s no crime here. Likely, if it actually happened, there was no crime then, either. If it did happen and there are unresolved issues the place for action now is not in criminal/civil court or the court of public opinion, it is going face to face and dealing with the matter like mature adults. My word, whoever may have been involved in this scenario, we’re talking a couple of drunk teenagers on our best day. Find the adults that enabled them to get plastered and charge those guys with something.
The purpose of these accusations at this time is not a quest for justice or qualifications, and everyone here on this forum knows that in their heart of hearts. I hate being lied to. Whether it is being lied to about facts or about purpose is irrelevant. And we are being lied to.
Lies are the norm in our political discourse now (whether about facts or purpose is again irrelevant). God help us when we make our national decisions on the basis of the most palatable lie du jour.
Lee
I’m personally troubled by all the demands Ford and Feinstein are making. The trick is, as I noted above, that any accuser with a decent lawyer ought to have been told that the first step is a thorough interview that evaluates the witness, attempts to attach the story to verifiable facts, and finally prepares the accuser for the possibility of cross examination. And in a trial, good witnesses don’t always enjoy being cross examined, but again, it’s a great way of getting at the truth.
Ford and Feinstein more or less want the end result—the accused to be punished—without the trouble of an interview or cross examination. Shades of Mike Nifong/Duke Lacrosse here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Ford and Feinstein more or less want the end result—the accused to be punished—without the trouble of an interview or cross examination. Shades of Mike Nifong/Duke Lacrosse here.
But this is the general approach for the whole movement. We went from not hearing from or downplaying abuse victims, to the other extreme, where one accuser is the judge and jury and we convict the individual. We need to find a balance. Yes, people who have been abused require special attention because of the circumstances around these actions. We need to give them some latitude, but it also needs to be with balance.
David, I wouldn’t say the whole movement, but an appallingly large portion to be sure.
There is also the reality of “not doing the math”. To illustrate, one of the interesting things I’ve calculated is that if their statistics are close to correct—for every 1000 assaults, 310 reports, of which 2-8% are false, and six convictions resulting in jail time—I calculate that you get 7-30 false reports for every six convictions resulting in jail time. If we wonder why men fear this, look at those numbers again. Even assuming perfect trials, for every rapist we rightly put in jail, one to five men go through H**l on the testimony of a perjurer.
Now not every false report ought to result in perjury charges, but given that we’re talking about reports found to be false, and not just reports with insufficient evidence to indict or convict, it strikes me that in a just world, we’d be seeing a LOT of people get prosecuted for it. Reality is that prosecutors don’t like prosecuting perjury in these cases because it would “discourage people from reporting”, but the flip side is that if juries realize that perjury is not punished, it’s going to impact how seriously they take witness testimony. The sword cuts both ways, and these legal requirements are there for a reason.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Listen, I don’t think she isn’t telling some level of the truth. And I do think she needs to be heard and the right people should weigh in on what they heard and take any appropriate action. I know abuse victims and I have abuse victims in my family, and it is hard. I feel for those going through this and I know how hard it is. I think the facts need to be weighed. If there is sufficient evidence something should be done. I am challenged by the level of clarity someone has while stone drunk from nearly 40 years ago, as an underaged child. So I think there is some challenges here.
Joe, you’re kinder than I deserve, and I must confess that I’d have hoped that what I’ve written here would be rather intuitive to any decent detective or investigator. Perhaps I am wrong. I do think I pick up on things that others miss, but whether or not I am right can be a fierce subject of debate.
Again, per David’s comment, the “I believe you” mantra of #MeToo scares me. Imagine walking into a used car dealer with that mindset—you would get devoured.
Regarding the question of “did something really happen to Dr. Ford”, that’s my one sticking point. To say that it didn’t, you’d have to argue that she ginned up the story in couples therapy to provide an acceptable story for the difficulties she and her husband were having at the time, and then later attached Kavanaugh’s name to it. The only thing that would argue that this would be plausible would be that her social media accounts appear to have been “scrubbed” better than Hilliary’s server.
I can infer with some authority that if the stories were true, she wanted something not to be seen, but whether that’s more consistent with simple fear of cross examination or something like my story is something I can’t say. I can say that she’s behaving very strangely for someone who theoretically wants to tell her story and come to the truth, though.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Getting a bit crazy in the news. It appears as of tonight that every single person identified by Mrs. Ford as having been at the party have all denied any knowledge of the event, or that the event ever took place or was indicative of Kavanaugh. Ford’s friend who was identified at the party, said that she had never seen or met Kavanaugh at any party. Unless something comes out of the hearing, I am not seeing how this will change anything. Dr. Ford, doesn’t know where this took place or when this took place. The people she identified as at the party have no recollection of it, and the person who she stated was in the room had no recollection. She never mentioned this to anyone until many decades later, and this was almost 40 years ago. While this may or may not have happened, we still live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty. While deference is to be made toward abuse victims, and there are many reasons why these things are delayed in being reported. I am just struggling here with what can be made of these allegations. I am hoping that in the end this brings some balance to the instantaneous conviction mentality that has started to pervade society.
Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendar Supporting Denial of Allegations https://www.nationalreview.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-assault-allegations…
But wow… who keeps their calendar from the 1980s?!
Prediction: the story will now begin to change. It wasn’t that summer, it was the one before… or actually the fall… and maybe only BK was there, nobody else…
I feel bad for Dr. Ford. It doesn’t seem unlikely to me that someone did something terrible, and terrifying to her. It just doesn’t look likely that BK was involved.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
New accuser over the weekend
Before Ford, I wondered why the Senate Democrats thought it was worth the bother to delay the vote. Increasingly looks like it’s a “buy time to dig up undisprovable accusers, and see if the public can be made sufficiently anti-Kav. to sink the confirmation.”
With #metoo to exploit it might work, because it’s a “presumption of guilt” dynamic, and innocence of 30+ year old events can be very hard to prove.
Sadly if they succeed, they will use the strategy again and again.
It might be impossible to confirm a non-liberal judge who is not a woman. Fortunately, there are some excellent candidates to nominate.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’ve got a ton of old stuff, scrapbook kind of stuff, that my mother saved from my high school years. Not quite what Kavanaugh has, but quite extensive.
Regarding the new allegations, the first set of new allegations were pretty much shot down within hours as almost all of those who could have witnessed them spoke up and said “nope, didn’t happen”, and even the complainant had to admit that she hadn’t actually seen what she claimed. We’ll see about the second set, but suffice it to say that having Michael Avenatti’s name attached is not a good sign.
One of my “favorite” things Feinstein et al are saying is that an FBI investigation is needed about the first allegation. Um, Dr. Ford named four people as having been there, and they’ve all said it didn’t happen, and Kavanaugh has produced his calendar from that summer indicating no record of such a party. What are they going to do, interview everyone who was a student or parent at the involved schools, never mind a fair number of them are dead by now?
I have a hope, perhaps forlorn, that this will persuade some activists that “I believe you” ought to be replaced with “I take your allegations seriously”. Probably forlorn, though.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“I believe you” ought to be replaced with “I take your allegations seriously”
As an alternative to #BelieveAllWomen I could absolutely embrace #TakeAllWomenSeriously.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
How about #Don’tGoToPartiesWhereAlcoholIsFlowingBecauseItWillComeBackAndBiteYouInTheButt ?
Lee
[Lee]How about #Don’tGoToPartiesWhereAlcoholIsFlowingBecauseItWillComeBackAndBiteYouInTheButt ?
Just askin’. :^) Seriously, yes, it is a good idea to leave the party if it appears people are, or are preparing to become, seriously drunk, and people who were drunk or stoned at the time tend to have errors in perception that make them bad witnesses. Two other reasons to be skeptical about the whole story are the attempt to get around ordinary rules of investigation (e.g. no cross examination by a person trained to do so) and the blatant political motivations of Senator Feinstein. She should be at least censured, if not removed from the Senate altogether, for her behavior.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion